Posted on 04/23/2002 6:39:35 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat
I'm not sure I am understanding your statement here.
Catholics believe in the Bible and in John the Baptist who preached about baptism and repentance. So why are you saying that Catholics do not believe in reprentance?
We [Catholics] always have needed and will need repentance because we have and will sin since we are imperfect. Or am I confused here?
The Church may not move fast but when it does, the world notices.
You sure that's Mussolini and not Franco? Inquisition lovers tend to dislike the former and adore the latter, as far as 1930s dictators go.
tsk. Now I have to go find it again. I made that search several years ago when my mom passed away and my brother and I were going through her things. I found my missal, my Scapular medal, and my Lives of the Saints book. I use the Saints book with my son (we homeschool), and he was amazed at the number of Saints in the "old" Church. I told him about half of these are Saints no more, and he asked, "Well, where did they go?"
Good question.
Domine non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tanto dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea will roll off your tongue like when you were a lad!
Actually, that's lass, but what the heck.
You are right about the Latin. I attended a Real Mass back East this past Christmas, and was surprised at how familiar it sounded, even though it's been close to 30 years.
Imagine a Sunday Mass where you won't have to grit your teeth during Fr. Liberal's left-wing "homily"
LOL. The Priest at the Church nearby used to plague us with closing prayers to "The Great Spirit" (apparently he'd done some work on a reservation, and he went native). It was a struggle to get to Mass every week. I think I was feeling sacrilegious -- I just didn't know it at the time.
You'll be surprised how much Latin you recall. Either Latin Mass, Novus Ordo or Tridentine, will be a great spiritual experience. Pax tibi.
By studying for many years and, finally, being ordained upon graduation. How then, could someone without that painstaking preparation suddenly become more competent, more capable, and more educated, huh?
Talk about liberal spin -- Formal study in a seminary (or in any other institution of higher learning) does NOT necessarily make someone more "competent," more "capable," or more "educated." In fact, my experience in private industry has led me to believe that the amount of time a person spends in a high-profile university is inversely proportional to their performance as an employee. In almost any area of public discourse that doesn't involve nuanced theological discussions, you'll generally find that the Catholic clergy has been eclipsed by Catholic lay people. Read the documents published by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on the subject of economics -- the economic positions taken by the U.S. bishops are so idiotic and childish that they are embarrassing to read, and the "knowledge" contained in these reports pales in comparison to the expertise of lay Catholic economists like Michael Novak, Lawrence Kudlow, etc. Sitting in a classroom studying economics doesn't make one competent, but working in those fields on a daily basis sure does.
The New Testament offers a remarkable lesson for us today -- one that very few people seem to appreciate. John was undoubtedly Christ's favorite disciple -- his love and devotion to Our Lord was unwavering. Christ entrusted His mother to John as He was dying on the cross, and John was the only apostle whose faith was so solid that he didn't have to die a martyr's death.
Peter was a different story. He was a short-tempered man who was apparently willing to use violence when he felt a need to do so. He was a weak, selfish man who would deny Christ three times in Pilate's courtyard. And yet it was PETER, not JOHN, whom Christ selected as the rock upon which He would build His church. This was no accident, and I would venture to guess that the Church's problems today will persist until a few more Peters and a few less Johns are in positions of authority.
However, "Forgive me for what I have done and for what I have failed to do," must be ringing in the ears of Bishops, Cardinals, etc. who did not act in a judicious manner in these case.
Do remember, though, that many of the leaders of the church acted upon advice given by psychologists and psychiatrists during the 70s and 80s, when common belief was that a pedophile could be cured. It was around 1987 or so, when the psychiatrists and psychologists began to recognize and treat the tendency to molest children and minors as an addiction -- which it is.
So would I -- but you act as if these are the only two options available, which is nonsense.
The Church was in far better shape prior to 1965 than post-1965.
While that may have true on the surface, I contend that in reality this was not the case. Many of the issues you mentioned first came to the surface in the 1960s, and people like my grandparents fought with clergy members and lay people in the Church about them all the time. The thing you have to remember is that almost none of these people were younger than them -- they were all their peers. And the overbearing, authoritarian pastor who lorded over his parishioners in the 1950s was the same one who told people like my grandparents to shut up and accept the changes "mandated" by Vatican II without a whimper.
When Christ spoke of the "narrow gate" to eternal life, I'm quite certain He didn't expect the gate to get any wider during certain periods in the Church's history (e.g. during the post-WWII period). The Church was "stronger" prior to Vatican II for one simple reason -- people (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) were stronger in general.
All his work is committed to promoting the Modernist church, the Novus Ordo church---not the Church of tradition, of the saints and the martyrs.
You can make that point if you'd like, but the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass until the Church determines otherwise.
But follow what the saints said and did---do not listen to today's cardinals.
I wrote the hierarchy off when I was in high school 15 years ago. As far as Catholics are concerned, there are only two people in the "clergy" who matter -- a local parish priest, who must be trusted to some extent because he serves as a personal confessor, and the Pope, because he is the Vicar of Christ and is protected from error in Catholic dogma. Anyone in the hierarchy between these two people is an extraneous distraction, if not downright dangerous.
"Class grades were given out very liberally at seminary. Some courses had only one oral exam and the instructor would nearly fail you if you were conservative. If you were feminine in your behavior and liberal in your theology then you might get an A."
You are right. We can all pray. Have you been to the Rosaries for Priests Thread in the Religion Forum?
Perhaps they just can't fathom what a life without sex must be like.
They just can't get their brains around it, can they, the very concept of mastery of the body and its passions, which is the whole purpose of celibacy.
Catholicism is not the only religion that practices celibacy; Hindu Swamis in India also swear a vow of poverty and nonattachment to the body and all its passions and pleasures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.